PTAB

IPR2013-00219

Sony Corp v. Yissum Research Development Co Of Hebrew University Of Jerusalem

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Capturing and Viewing Stereoscopic Panoramic Images
  • Brief Description: The ’284 patent discloses a system for generating stereoscopic panoramic images. The method involves capturing a series of images from a moving data source, extracting vertical strips or "segments" from these images, and then combining or "mosaicing" these strips to create at least two panoramic images (e.g., for the left and right eye) that provide a sense of depth when viewed.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Kawakita - Claims 1, 10, 27, and 36 are anticipated by Kawakita under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kawakita (VRSJ Research Report, Nov. 27, 1997).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kawakita taught every limitation of the independent claims. Kawakita described a system where a single video camera rotates to capture a series of frame images, meeting the limitation of an "imager that moves relative to a scene." It then disclosed excising two displaced vertical "slit images" (segments) from each frame—one for the left eye view and one for the right—and "compositing" (mosaicing) them sequentially to create left and right panoramic images. Petitioner asserted that the necessary digital processing for this technique, such as template matching to determine slit widths, inherently disclosed a "processor." Finally, Kawakita's "field test" with researchers who confirmed a "sense of depth was faithfully reproduced" inherently disclosed the claimed "display."
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that Kawakita’s fundamental technique of generating stereoscopic panoramas from displaced vertical slits taken from a moving camera was the same as that described in the ’284 patent.

Ground 2: Anticipation by Chen - Claims 1, 2, 10, 27, 28, and 36 are anticipated by Chen under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chen (Application # 2001/0010546).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Chen disclosed a hand-held "virtual reality" camera that anticipated the claims. As a user panned the camera, it acquired a series of left and right image pairs from spatially differentiated viewpoints. This met the "imager that moves" limitation. A processor then sampled the left and right images from each exposure and combined them into separate left and right "composite" (mosaic) images. For dependent claims, Chen explicitly taught a portable, hand-held device with a housing accommodating the imager, processor, and a stereo display that presented a selected portion of the left and right composite images to the respective eyes of a viewer.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Ishiguro and Chen - Claims 1-3, 10, 20, 27-29, 36, and 37 are obvious over Ishiguro in view of Chen under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ishiguro (SYSTEMS AND COMPUTERS IN JAPAN, 1992) and Chen (Application # 2001/0010546).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted Ishiguro taught nearly all claim elements. Ishiguro disclosed a single camera rotating on a circular path to capture images, from which two symmetrically displaced vertical slits were extracted by a processor and "arranged" into omnidirectional left and right mosaics for stereo viewing. Petitioner argued that while Ishiguro did not explicitly disclose a display for providing a sense of depth, the ’284 patent admitted such displays were well-known in the art. Chen was introduced to supply the missing elements and render the system portable. Chen taught a portable hand-held device with an integrated housing, processor, and stereo display.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Ishiguro and Chen because both were directed to generating stereoscopic images. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Chen’s teachings of a compact, portable housing and integrated display into Ishiguro’s system to achieve the predictable result of making Ishiguro’s omnidirectional stereo imaging system easier to carry, use, and store.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known improvement (portability from Chen) to a similar system (Ishiguro's stereo imaging), leading to a predictable outcome.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous other challenges, including that claims are obvious over Kawakita alone; obvious over Chen in view of Kodak (to add a communications apparatus); obvious over Ishiguro alone (arguing a display was obvious); anticipated by Asahi; and obvious over Asahi in view of Helava (a photogrammetric workstation).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "imager": Petitioner proposed this term means an image recording device including elements in at least a portion of an image plane. This construction was based on the specification's disclosure that cameras could have recording elements only in the portions from which strips are obtained, meaning the "imager" need not be a full-frame sensor.
  • "a display": Petitioner argued this term means one or more elements that present an image for viewing, including a physical print. This was supported by a dependent claim reciting a "lenticular print" as the display.
  • "strips of a series of images": Petitioner contended this term does not require that strips be extracted from a larger recorded image, but can be the images themselves as originally recorded. This was based on prosecution history and the specification's allowance for imagers that only record the strip portions.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 10, 20, 27-29, 36, and 37 of the ’284 patent as unpatentable.